hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
 ·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to tc1uscg
Re: Waiting for the anti-Vonage fan boys...
AOL was not the one that lobbied for open access. it was another ISP that was the full steam boat for that out in Cali. Why would AOL want to do that when they had all of the TWC lines for that. Also you don't wholesale for free. you actually PAY for the lines. So does the End-User and as far as AT$T charging what they want and crying over the copper network; that network should be open and left open and intact. They did not pay for that network themselves like the cable companies did. AT&T and VZ used the government to give them their service areas and customers they have today. If it wasn't for the gov't giving tax credits and everything else to them we wouldn't have had a telephone network when it came out. Hell even with the gov't protecting them we still aren't what other countries have in terms of communications and internet. The copper lines should be turned over to a different company and let them wholesale them out to anyone they want if the bells want to go into the FTTC or FTTP. The only thing the bells should get is to rebuild their entire network all over again; its not like they don't have the money; VZ is doing it so why can't AT$T?
And just for the record- MCI still does offer services over AT$T and VZ Lines; under the MCI brand. |
|
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
1 edit | But TWC isn't everywhere. I knew only of AOL since they seem to be the name everyone relates to. In my area, it's Comcast, WOW, AT&T, and I think there was a article in the paper about it. But anyway.. it never fails that when customers benefits, they (the consumer) seem to think it's ok for another provider to erode on other providers right-of-way, programing, infrastructure and R&D. Sorta like a dog circling the table hoping for a scrap to fall from the table. I'm not knocking Vonage as a service, just they and it's customers need to understand that what they were doing wasn't right and are now paying the price, as they should have from the get go. That's why I said Sprint did the smart thing and cut them some slack. The others should too. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| The thing though is with Vonage though some of the patents that VZ says they own were open source at one time. And Vonage seen that they were open source so used them. You shouldnt be able to take something that is open source and throw your name on it and say its yours when you didnt develop it. And on top that of VZ never developed the items anyway. they were MCI's. VZ only got them because of the merger of VZ Business and MCI.
Once open source always open source. Someone shouldnt be able to claim its theres regardless of what happened. Really the only one that should be able to claim anything is the Bell Labs may have some say in it. But then again There is not a Bell Labs anymore. What was Lucent is now some other company (can't remember their name but their name is attached to VZW's ads in news papers). But still. VZ, Sprint, and ATT shouldnt be doing this just to put them out of business like they want to or to claim something is there's because they stamped the Bell name all over it but even then Sprint never was a bell and don't think they even developed anything.
Vonage really isnt paying a price but dragging them through court. Vonage will always be here until either they can't survive because of the bells or the Cable Co's but either way someone would buy them up. Prolly even Packet8 since they have no dependency on the bell$ for technology. |
|
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI | Agree.  |
|
